2026 active aero discussions

Here are our CFD links and discussions about aerodynamics, suspension, driver safety and tyres. Please stick to F1 on this forum.
User avatar
jjn9128
752
Joined: Tue May 02, 2017 10:53 pm

Re: 2026 active aero discussions

Post

theVortexCreatorY250 wrote:
Wed Nov 10, 2021 2:08 pm
I heard through an F1 engineer who was at Merc that they were working on a proposal to use fans (active) for cars following to have a 'fan boost' increasing downforce... more importantly trying to get 'side by side' racing, not just DRS passes
I'm not sure a fan helps in a wake... thinking how it would be implemented, e.g. like the GMA T50 it would help solve a separation issue, but wakes aren't causing flow separation...
#aerogandalf
"There is one big friend. It is downforce. And once you have this it’s a big mate and it’s helping a lot." Robert Kubica

User avatar
theVortexCreatorY250
12
Joined: Thu Oct 07, 2021 1:53 pm

Re: 2026 active aero discussions

Post

jjn9128 wrote:
Wed Nov 10, 2021 2:20 pm
theVortexCreatorY250 wrote:
Wed Nov 10, 2021 2:08 pm
I heard through an F1 engineer who was at Merc that they were working on a proposal to use fans (active) for cars following to have a 'fan boost' increasing downforce... more importantly trying to get 'side by side' racing, not just DRS passes
I'm not sure a fan helps in a wake... thinking how it would be implemented, e.g. like the GMA T50 it would help solve a separation issue, but wakes aren't causing flow separation...
I think it was more of a crude downforce creater, maybe adding higher cpt above the rear diffuser. They said the goal behind the study was to create a system where by the following car 'has the same downforce' as if they were in clean air.
If it was used under the floor I'm sure the curvatures would've been regulated to ensure it wasn't used as a 'separation fix' like the T50
I create vortices

mzso
mzso
50
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 1:52 pm

Re: 2026 active aero discussions

Post

jjn9128 wrote:
Wed Nov 10, 2021 2:20 pm
theVortexCreatorY250 wrote:
Wed Nov 10, 2021 2:08 pm
I heard through an F1 engineer who was at Merc that they were working on a proposal to use fans (active) for cars following to have a 'fan boost' increasing downforce... more importantly trying to get 'side by side' racing, not just DRS passes
I'm not sure a fan helps in a wake... thinking how it would be implemented, e.g. like the GMA T50 it would help solve a separation issue, but wakes aren't causing flow separation...
Well, the extra grip would certainly help with overtaking, wouldn't it?

A.J.O
A.J.O
4
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2022 3:48 pm

Re: 2026 active aero discussions

Post

With the TD set to be issued to address porpoising, why not look into allowing active aero early?
I would think that allowing the rear spoiler and or beam wing to be used as trim tabs in lieu of DRS could be a pretty cool thing. IMO Much better then active suspension.
Aircraft/boats use theses devices to help hold the desired AOA of the vessel

101FlyingDutchman
101FlyingDutchman
8
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2019 11:01 am

Re: 2026 active aero discussions

Post

A.J.O wrote:
Thu Jun 16, 2022 10:24 pm
With the TD set to be issued to address porpoising, why not look into allowing active aero early?
I would think that allowing the rear spoiler and or beam wing to be used as trim tabs in lieu of DRS could be a pretty cool thing. IMO Much better then active suspension.
Aircraft/boats use theses devices to help hold the desired AOA of the vessel
As interesting as it is, then you need to talk cost cap/wake profiles etc. The whole point of these regs was to allow for better and closer racing. Personally I’d far rather seeing refuelling come back! Especially something with serious green credentials (but this is outside the scope of this discussion)

Fan of active aero not so much active suspension. Cars become devoid of character

A.J.O
A.J.O
4
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2022 3:48 pm

Re: 2026 active aero discussions

Post

101FlyingDutchman wrote:
Thu Jun 16, 2022 11:05 pm

As interesting as it is, then you need to talk cost cap/wake profiles etc. The whole point of these regs was to allow for better and closer racing. Personally I’d far rather seeing refuelling come back! Especially something with serious green credentials (but this is outside the scope of this discussion)

Fan of active aero not so much active suspension. Cars become devoid of character
A 5%-10% budget increase for R&D wouldn't be that big of a deal. Its cheaper to develop now vs later due to the current rate of inflation. Active aero is already in the pipe line. bring in part of that budget now. If a team cant afford it they can always sell out to Andretti. lol
Wake profiles are definitely a concern. However, Teams are going to want to keep any trim device as neutral as possible as any down force or lift produced is going to cost drag. therefore, floor development would continue as it is a more drag effective solution.
Anyway, I don't profess to have all the answers on hand. I just really don't like any of the currently proposed damper/suspension/ride height ideas. I believe it should be up to the driver to bring his/her aero platform as stable as possible, through all phases of the corner. If not we might as well send autonomous vehicles around the track.
I also agree with you about refueling. Nice and easy 60kg savings

User avatar
Stu
Moderator
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2019 9:05 am
Location: Norfolk, UK

Re: 2026 active aero discussions

Post

I would aim to use any active-aero in the tunnels to adjust the aero load. Underbody downforce is very efficient compared with rear wing.

Not sure how the FIA would be able to regulate it (potentially it is Pandora’s Box) without putting a limit on the quantity of actuators allowed.
Perspective - Understanding that sometimes the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view.

mzso
mzso
50
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 1:52 pm

Re: 2026 active aero discussions

Post

101FlyingDutchman wrote:
Thu Jun 16, 2022 11:05 pm

As interesting as it is, then you need to talk cost cap/wake profiles etc. The whole point of these regs was to allow for better and closer racing. Personally I’d far rather seeing refuelling come back! Especially something with serious green credentials (but this is outside the scope of this discussion)

Fan of active aero not so much active suspension. Cars become devoid of character
Why refuelling? So there would be even less on-track action? I would rather see tire changes go away. (With a different supplier)

We still need more raceable cars though.

mzso
mzso
50
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 1:52 pm

Re: 2026 active aero discussions

Post

A.J.O wrote:
Fri Jun 17, 2022 12:43 am
I believe it should be up to the driver to bring his/her aero platform as stable as possible, through all phases of the corner. If not we might as well send autonomous vehicles around the track.
???
Don't be fallacious. The driver never tuned the aero for himself, and the lack of it definitely doesn't mean autonomous vehicles.

(I never caught Roboracing. I wonder how that worked out, race-wise.)

101FlyingDutchman
101FlyingDutchman
8
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2019 11:01 am

Re: 2026 active aero discussions

Post

mzso wrote:
Sat Jun 18, 2022 10:34 am
101FlyingDutchman wrote:
Thu Jun 16, 2022 11:05 pm

As interesting as it is, then you need to talk cost cap/wake profiles etc. The whole point of these regs was to allow for better and closer racing. Personally I’d far rather seeing refuelling come back! Especially something with serious green credentials (but this is outside the scope of this discussion)

Fan of active aero not so much active suspension. Cars become devoid of character
Why refuelling? So there would be even less on-track action? I would rather see tire changes go away. (With a different supplier)

We still need more raceable cars though.
More from a perspective of different strategies that can be played. Creating more offsets on track because of it. Also some cars definitely seem to run tons better on lighter or heavier fuel so they can tailor their race accordingly

A.J.O
A.J.O
4
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2022 3:48 pm

Re: 2026 active aero discussions

Post

mzso wrote:
Sat Jun 18, 2022 10:41 am
A.J.O wrote:
Fri Jun 17, 2022 12:43 am
I believe it should be up to the driver to bring his/her aero platform as stable as possible, through all phases of the corner. If not we might as well send autonomous vehicles around the track.
???
Don't be fallacious. The driver never tuned the aero for himself, and the lack of it definitely doesn't mean autonomous vehicles.

(I never caught Roboracing. I wonder how that worked out, race-wise.)
your quoting me out of context. Active suspension aims to achieve a set ride height regardless of the drivers inputs. The driver slams the brakes, the nose doesn't dive, turn left and the right side does not squat nor does the left lift. etc
Therefore weight still transfers but the aerodynamic platform maintains the same attitude regardless of how abrupt or supple a drivers inputs are. Yes I'm being dramatic saying that allowing a computer to deal with the phases of a corner is liken to the car being fully autonomous. But to me the corners are what separates the good from the great.

It is theorized that the cause of porpoising is from the excess of rear down force at a given speed.
My proposal is a simple trim tab in lieu of the current DRS flap. All this would achieve is applying more or less downforce to the rear of the car at a given speed. This could be controlled by the driver the exact same as it is controlled by the pilot of a light aircraft.

Edit* I never really addressed your statement. I never said it was up to the driver to "tune" the aero. It's up to the driver to maintain a stable platform during rotation. Pretty much the same as its up to a pilot to maintain coordinated flight

Tommy Cookers
Tommy Cookers
592
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2012 3:55 pm

Re: 2026 active aero discussions

Post

A.J.O wrote:
Sat Jun 18, 2022 12:30 pm
My proposal is a simple trim tab in lieu of the current DRS flap. All this would achieve is applying more or less downforce to the rear of the car at a given speed. This could be controlled by the driver the exact same as it is controlled by the pilot of a light aircraft.
you don't seem to know what a trim tab does

it produces a small force opposite to the force required
this moves the (free-moving) pitch control surface to give the corresponding and opposite larger force required

you haven't got a movable control surface to change its force by being moved

A.J.O
A.J.O
4
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2022 3:48 pm

Re: 2026 active aero discussions

Post

Tommy Cookers wrote:
Sat Jun 18, 2022 2:08 pm

you don't seem to know what a trim tab does

it produces a small force opposite to the force required
this moves the (free-moving) pitch control surface to give the corresponding and opposite larger force required

you haven't got a movable control surface to change its force by being moved
I do understand what a trim tab does.
On a boat, a trim tab is a movable control surface that adjusts the pitch of the hull at speed. On an aircraft a trim tab is a movable control surface that interacts ,as you described, with the elevator ( on the simplest of aircraft) another movable control surface that controls the pitch of the aircraft.

The portion of the rear spoiler on an F1 car that is movable, is labeled as a DRS flap.
I use the term "trim tab" because this "flap" exists at the trailing edge of a control surface ( the current F1 floor) *edit* <-very loosely speaking
I propose this flap could add to the rear down force or take it away by way of lift.
I am not stuck on the term and am just using it in lack of having a better term to use. Please suggest one.
Maybe an elevator? IDK
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trim_tab

drbirdsall
drbirdsall
0
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2022 12:47 pm

Re: 2026 active aero discussions

Post

Just chiming in to applaud those that speak of "leave it up to the driver", and "different strategies". Why not combine both?

I say replace DRS with something better that has a race-proven performance record. Remember the 1966 Chevrolet Chaparral 2e with its articulating high wing? It had 2 positions. Minimum downforce (almost flat) and greater downforce (greater angle). The driver could select one position or the other, nothing inbetween, any time he wanted. It was so effective that it was banned the following year.

Videos of the wing in action are on YouTube.

Imagine on-demand extra downforce available at every corner. The driver could decide to use it upon entry, upon exit, or throughout a corner. Or not at all. Whatever works best for him and the car.

Of course, there would be a learning curve involved. Not only of the system, at first, but at every curve of a track during Free Practice sessions. Could there be driver error during a race? Certainly. Let the best driver win.

User avatar
Holm86
232
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:37 am
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark

Re: 2026 active aero discussions

Post

drbirdsall wrote:
Sat Jun 18, 2022 11:31 pm
Just chiming in to applaud those that speak of "leave it up to the driver", and "different strategies". Why not combine both?

I say replace DRS with something better that has a race-proven performance record. Remember the 1966 Chevrolet Chaparral 2e with its articulating high wing? It had 2 positions. Minimum downforce (almost flat) and greater downforce (greater angle). The driver could select one position or the other, nothing inbetween, any time he wanted. It was so effective that it was banned the following year.

Videos of the wing in action are on YouTube.

Imagine on-demand extra downforce available at every corner. The driver could decide to use it upon entry, upon exit, or throughout a corner. Or not at all. Whatever works best for him and the car.

Of course, there would be a learning curve involved. Not only of the system, at first, but at every curve of a track during Free Practice sessions. Could there be driver error during a race? Certainly. Let the best driver win.
In 2009 they had a manually adjustable front wing, they could change the angle from the cockpit. It wasn't a success